“Vironment”:An Art of Wearable Social Distancing

Steve Mann, Cayden Pierce, Christopher Tong, Christina Mann

Fig. 1. 3D printed version of Vironment 3.0 with rigidly aligned sensorsand OpenEyeTap computer vision and display system.

Abstract—“Vironment” is a series of art pieces, social commen-tary, technology, etc., based on wearable health technologies ofsocial-distancing, culminating in a social-distancing device that takesthe familiar world of security and surveillance technologies thatsurround us and re-situates it on the body of the wearer (technologiesthat become part of us). This piece also introduces a conceptualframework for (1) the sensing of the self together with (2) sensingof others and (3) sensing of the environment around us.

Keywords—wearables, health, wearable computing, signal process-ing, signal reconstruction, high-dynamic-range (HDR), self-sensing,vironment, invironment, environment, sonar, wearable sensing, facialrecognition, surveillance, sousveillance

I. BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION

INVIRONMENT is a new concept defined in contrast to theenvironment. Whereas the environment is our surroundings,

the invironment is us, ourselves, and in particular, includes thatpart of us that we consider to be ourselves, e.g. our shoes,clothing, eyeglasses, and the like, along with a certain space,or social-distance around us, often defined in the contextof wearable computing[1], [2]. The concept of invironmentis of particular relevance in the era of health pandemicsand pandemic awareness as global society asks questionsabout health, safety, wellness, and the individual’s right toutilize technologies to assist in these areas[3], [4], [5], [6].Technologies for health and wellness are rapidly becomingviewed as extensions of one’s body, which raises questionsabout human rights to technology, the human condition, and

We wish to thank AMD, SwimOP, and Swim Drink Fish

the extension of “the self [7]” into the space around thebody. Specifically, with the introduction of social-distancing,questions arise regarding the area in which “the self” existsand where “the self” ends.

In further inquiry of these concepts, a series of interactive artpieces are constructed to highlight the good and bad of social-sistancing, i.e. some of its benefits, downsides, and absurditiesof social distancing, based on the idea of a social-distancingnecklace, inspired by the commonly worn spiked necklaceshown in Fig. 3. We develop wearable computing systemswhich promote and consider the health practice of socialdistancing from a health and wellness perspective, a realisticsociological perspective, and a technological perspective.

Surveillance is well-known in the areas of smart build-ings, smart streets, smart cities, etc. from an “Internet ofThings” (IoT) perspective. This is the traditional situationin which sensors exist in the environment around us. Morerecently, “wearables” (wearable technology) has emerged asa new discipline in which sensors are affixed to peoplerather than things [8], [9], [2], giving rise to “WearableAI[1]”(Wearable Artificial Intelligence”). What is most importantabout wearable technology is not so much the proximity tothe body, but, more importantly, the ability for this tech-nology to function as an agent of the mind and body’sfreewill and self-determination over own one’s own destiny,i.e. “sousveillance”[10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17](inverse surveillance, sensors-on-people) and self-sensing e.g.Quantified Self-Sensing (QSS)[18], [19], as outlined in Fig 1of the ITTI paper[20].

Here, we present a series of art pieces, social commentary,technology, inventions, etc. which raise questions deeply con-nected to the paradigm shifts of social-distancing and wearablecomputing and how they interact.

II. SELF AND TECHNOLOGY, SOCIETY, ANDENVIRONMENT

In the past cities were more important than countries interms of boundaries, e.g. walled cities thousands of years ago.Next countries emerged as important. Finally in the era ofglobal pandemics, we’re seeing world governance, and thereduced autonomy of countries. What matters now is clothes,i.e. our individual selves become in some sense the boundaryof greatest importance. So in regards to “crossing borders”,we’ve witnessed the evolution from cities, to countries, toclothes.

Vironment is an exploration of the following three elements:• Self and technology (e.g. the combination of human and

arX

iv:2

112.

0009

3v2

[cs

.CY

] 2

Dec

202

1

machines, “cyborg”, “humachine”, augmented human,etc.);

• Self and society (interaction between humans, augmentedhumans, etc.);

• Self and the environment (interaction between the aug-mented human and the natural or built environment, e.g.cyborg-city interaction, etc.)[21].

III. VIRONMENT 1.0/SOCIAL-BUBBLE

Vironment is a series of art installations, design interven-tions, and inventions aimed at understanding and reconstruct-ing social distance as the sometimes soft and fuzzy boundarybetween the invironment and the environment. Through thesecreations arises a deeper inquiry into the relationship betweenthe body and the spacial sphere around the body, whichtogether form much of the concept of “self”. The designpieces presented here explore the extension of the self intothe environment, an area of space which has become ofutmost social significance in the era of health pandemics asindividuals individuate and define themselves by the “socialbubble” that exists around them.

One piece we name “Vironment/Social-Bubble”, or, simply,“Vironment 1.0”, is shown in Fig 2. It is based on the useof a ball commonly used as a water-based amusement ride,called the “waterball ride” or “water ball ride”. In the contextof a vessel surrounding the rider, when used on water, itrepresents an example of the interaction between humans,water, and technology. (The field of “WaterHCI = Water-Human-Computer Interaction” originated in Ontario in the1960s and 1970s, and relates to the concept of “Fluidic UserInterface”[22]).

Here we explore the use of such a ball anywhere, such ason land, and not just on water only.

Vironment 1.0 takes the idea of social-distancing quiteliterally. Many of the parks in our neighbourhood post signswarning us to keep our social distance of two metres or sixfeet. Vironment 1.0 is a two metre diameter plastic bubble inwhich a participant is placed, and the bubble is filled througha HEPA (High Efficiency Particulate Air) filter connected to ablower supplied by a solar-powered battery system. The filterand blower assembly was constructed from an automobileheater blower and runs on a small 12 volt battery which ischarged by solar power.

Two individuals crossing paths will be forced to maintain aproper 2m social distance. This demonstrates an ideal situationfor an individual wishing to avoid contact with pandemicdiseases by providing the wearer with clean, filtered air anda visible “social bubble” barrier. Also demonstrated is theinherent impossibility of social-distancing in some situations,as the individual in the bubble cannot fit through doorways,or even walk down a narrow sidewalk whilst encapsulated inan impenetrable social bubble.

This piece (Vironment 1.0) raises questions about whatspace “belongs” to an individual. Does an individual encom-pass only their brain? Their whole body? The brain, body,and the clothing on the body, and maybe also some of thespace that surrounds the body and its clothes? This is a vital

0 1 2 3-2 -1-3

1

2

-1

-2

0 1 2 3-2 -1-3

1

2

-1

-2

0 1 2 3-2 -1-3

1

2

-1

-2

Vironmentalism is Human-centered

0 1 2 3-2 -1-3

1

2

-1

-2

0 1 2 3-2 -1-3

1

2

-1

-2

Environment Invironment

Environment

Invironment

Fig. 2. “Vironment/Social-Bubble”, or simply “Vironment 1.0” is a socialcommentary on social-distancing to help us rethink the natural and socialenvironment and our natural and social ecosystems in times of pandemics.

question to ask in times when the health and well-being ofindividuals and society is predicated on everyone existing inand maintaining their own invironmental space. Vironment 1.0serves as a visceral example and visualization of the socialspace that has become normal (and often mandatory) in theera of health pandemics and pandemic awareness.

IV. VIRONMENT 2.0

Vironment 2.0 borrows from a theatre of the absurd and thedetournement (Situationist) visual art tradition, as somethingso hideous as to hopefully make itself unnecessary once ithas raised the awareness needed to make it unnecessary. Itis important to note that spiked chokers are not very sociallyacceptable to begin with. Here the location of this wearablecompliments the off-putting aesthetic[23].

Vironment 2.0 is an extension of the common spiked neck-lace, in which the spikes are simply made longer, as shown inFig. 4. The necklace was 3D printed and the spike extensionswere cut from steel wire, tipped with the same spikes as in acommon spiked necklace.

This piece more assertively defines the space around one-self. Instead of simply blocking out anyone from entering intoone’s social bubble, Vironment 2.0 threatens consequences foranyone entering into one’s social bubble. This touches on thereal-world health risks associated with entering into others’social bubbles, and the physically detrimental ramificationsthat can be dealt to those who disrespect maintenance of thesocial bubble.

Fig. 3. Inspiration for Vironment 2.0.

Fig. 4. Vironment 2.0: Social distancing spikes.

V. VIRONMENT 3.0

Further, we present a virtual version of Viron-ment/Invironment, see Fig 1, Fig 5, and Fig 7. Thevirtual Vironment uses sonar to alert the wearer in regardsto violation of social-distancing. In particular, we use 12HC-SR04 Ultrasonic sensors which each have a detectablerange from 2cm to 4 metres (approx. 13.1 feet). These 12sensors are arranged around a circle, at 30 degree intervals,analogous to a clock face, i.e. at the cardinal 12-hour clockface directions and worn around the neck of the individual.Vironment 3.0 is a distance sensor with a 360° veillance fieldsurrounding the wearer. A blinding bright LED will light upand a car horn (worn in a backpack) will sound whenever thisapparatus detects an individual entering into the 2m socialradius existing around the wearer. This serves as a barrier-less

Fig. 5. Vironment 3.0 with softband.

Fig. 6. CAD of Vironment 3.0 made in Fusion 360 for 3D printing

and non-violent approach to social-distancing that maintainsthe importance of the social bubble, while maintaining anotification for the wearer and the individual imposing uponthe wearer’s personal space.

A 3-D printed version of Vironment 3.0 was made in whichthe necklace is hollowed out in order to route wires for thesonars more discretely. The circuit board was also movedto the back of the necklace to act as a counterweight. Inprevious designs the necklace was not level, with the forwardfacing sonars pitched down. Adding a counterweight allowsthe necklace to align in parallel with the ground, ensuring thesensors can sense the presence of any imposing individualswithin a 360° field around the wearer.

In order to increase the ease and speed at which theapparatus is mounted on the neck, a hinge was placed toconnect the two 3D printed parts of the necklace, allowing itto open and close for easy wearability. A double latch system

Fig. 7. The Vironment 3.0 necklace with hardband.

was designed and included as a lock to keep the necklaceshut around the user’s neck. See Fig 6 for a CAD model ofthe Vironment 3.0 piece.

The electrical system is composed of 12 HC-SR04 Ultra-sonic sensors, with all Vcc pins on a 5 Volt bus, and allGnd pins on a Ground bus. Each sensor has two data wires,one “Trigger”, which triggers the ultrasonic wave, and one‘Echo”, which outputs information regarding the time delay(and thus, distance measured). Because there are 12 sonarseach with two data lines (24 lines), four MC14051B analogmultiplexers are used to switch between the sonars, with 2multiplexers chained for “Trigger”s from the sensors, and 2multiplexers chained for “Echo”s. The system is controlled byan Espressif ESP-32 DevKit C microcontroller, which controlsthe multiplexers, provides power to the sensors, and processesthe data. These few components are mounted and soldered toa piece of perfboard. The necklace interfaces with the displaysystem (the EyeTap) using a direct USB connection.

In the next, future iteration of Vironment, Vironment 4.0,instead of 12 pairs of ultrasound transducers, there will be12 individual transducers in which each is both a transmitterand a receiver. This will decrease the weight of the wearableas well as its height (the double stacked sonar hits the user’schin), from about 48mm to 16mm, i.e. about one third theheight of Vironment 3.0.

A. PPI (Plan Position Indicator)

Finally, we combine two concepts: (1) the concept of thePPI (Plan Position Indicator) from radar [24] (see Fig 8),and (2) the use of a clockface, especially in shooter-basedreconnaissance where a shooter is instructed as to the locationof enemy targets in reference to a clock face. The necklace wasupdated to reflect the layout of a clock, with a sonar placedat every hour position. In egocentric coordinates, the sonar at12 o’clock points forward and the sonar at 6 o’clock pointsbackwards. The numbers of the clock are also engraved on theinside of the collar right behind their respective sonars, to aidthe user in putting the necklace on properly.

As such, rather than quadrants or octants, we use dodecants,dividing the space into 12 equally sized sectors.

Fig. 8. The P.P.I. live user interface representing the social bubble aroundthe user. The distance of the dodecant boundary to the center represents thedistance of another individual to the wearer, at that specific location. The coloris also modulated from black (infinite) to bright green (2cm) to represent thedistance.

This layout of PPI and clockface is displayed live on ARglasses worn by the user. The AR view is achieved by a mi-crodisplay UI running on an EyeTap [25] smart glasses display,as shown in Fig 1. The processor on the necklace (an ESP-32) communicates sonar information directly to the EyeTap’son-board Raspberry Pi Zero W Single Board Computer (SBC).

Thus, the wearer of Vironment 3.0 can visualize (in AR)social distancing information using a Natural User Interface(NUI).

VI. SOCIAL DISTANCER APP

Many of the widely used and discussed social distanc-ing technologies are surveillant - they rely on a centralizedauthority collecting data on citizens in order to maintain asocial distancing and contact-tracing database. “Vironment”is different in its ability to encourage, or enforce, socialdistancing without the requirement of surveillant systems.

To continue exploration in this direction, we developeda social distancing smartphone app with the ability to beimmediately deployed to billions of people. It runs on con-sumer hardware and presents a means of social distancingthat is sousveillant, open, and available to everyone to usewithout extraneous hardware and without reliance on any

Fig. 9. Social Distancer app: A wearable indicator for social distance. The application is run on a smartphone in the shirt pocket (with the screen facingout). The screen is green if proper social distance is maintained, yellow if on the verge of danger, and red if social distance is compromised.

central authority. The Social Distancer app can be seen inFig 9.

The Social Distancer app runs on a smart phone equippedwith a forward facing camera. The application collects a livestream of video data from the front facing camera which itruns through an object detection neural network (MobileNetpretrained on Coco dataset [26]). A filter is placed on theoutput of the network to only accept predictions of people inthe image frame (ignoring recognition of other objects). Thebounding box around the person is combined with the averageheight of a person (∼1.65 meters [27]) to estimate the distancebetween the Social Distancer app and the individual beingdetected by the camera. The screen of the Social Distancerapp is green when social distancing is maintained, yellowwhen individuals are 6 to 7 feet away (almost breakingsocial distancing), and red when social distancing has beencompromised (i.e. another individual has intruded into thewearer’s inviroment).

The user of the system places the Social Distancer app in thebreast pocket of their clothing with the screen and front camerafacing outwards. In this configuration, the Social Distancer appserves as a way to remind others to maintain a healthy andsafe distance.

VII. CONCLUSION

We have introduced a series of wearable health systemscollectively named “Invironment”. Vironment 1.0, and 2.0were forms of social commentary highlighting design ques-tions which were answered through a social-distancing sonarsystem, Vironment 3.0. Vironment 3.0 consists of an array ofsonar sensors arranged in a circle at 30 degree intervals, i.e. asthe 12 cardinal directions of the hours of a 12-hour clock face.In this system we designed a PPI (Plan Position Indicator)on an EyeTap display to show the wearer a top-down “map”of their risk space in regards to violators of social distance.Finally, the Social Distancer app is a deployable, sousveillantsystem which promotes social distancing while avoiding theuse of centralized surveillant data tracking.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to thank Kyle Simmons for hisfeedback on the electrical design of the sonar social distancer“Vironment 3.0” system.

REFERENCES

[1] S. Mann, L.-T. Cheng, J. Robinson, K. Sumi, T. Nishida, S. Matsushita,Omer Faruk Ozer, O. Ozun, C. Oncel Tuzel, V. Atalay, A. E. Cetin,J. Anhalt, A. Smailagic, D. P. Siewiorek, F. Gemperle, D. Salber,S. Weber, J. Beck, J. Jennings, and D. A. Ross, “Wearable ai,” IntelligentSystems, IEEE, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1–53, May/June 2001.

[2] S. Mann, “Wearable computing: A first step toward personal imaging,”IEEE Computer, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 25–32, 1997.

[3] B. Nayak and S. S. Bhattacharyya, “The changing narrative in the healthinsurance industry: Wearables technology in health insurance productsand services for the covid-19 world,” Journal of Health Management,vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 550–558, 2020.

[4] O. Amft, L. Lopera, P. Lukowicz, S. Bian, and P. Burggraf, “Wearablesto fight covid-19: From symptom tracking to contact tracing,” IEEEAnnals of the History of Computing, vol. 19, no. 04, pp. 53–60, 2020.

[5] B. Nestor, J. Hunter, R. Kainkaryam, E. Drysdale, J. B. Inglis,A. Shapiro, S. Nagaraj, M. Ghassemi, L. Foschini, and A. Goldenberg,“Dear watch, should i get a covid-19 test? designing deployable machinelearning for wearables,” medRxiv, 2021.

[6] A. R. Linares, K. A. Bramstedt, M. M. Chilukuri, and P. M. Doraiswamy,“Physician perceptions of surveillance: Wearables, apps, and bots forcovid-19,” medRxiv, 2021.

[7] M. P. Fitzgerald, “Self-disclosure and expressed self-esteem, socialdistance and areas of the self revealed,” The Journal of Psychology,vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 405–412, 1963.

[8] R. T. Azuma, “Augmented reality: Approaches and technical chal-lenges,” in Fundamentals of wearable computers and augmented reality,W. Barfield and T. Caudell, Eds. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Press,2001, ch. 2, pp. 27–63.

[9] T. Starner, S. Mann, B. Rhodes, J. Levine, J. Healey, D. Kirsch, R. Pi-card, and A. Pentland, “Augmented reality through wearable computing,”PRESENCE, vol. 6, no. 4, August 1997, mIT Press.

[10] S. Mann, “Sousveillance, not just surveillance, in response to terrorism,”Metal and Flesh, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2002.

[11] S. Mann, J. Nolan, and B. Wellman, “Sousveillance: Inventing andusing wearable computing devices for data collection in surveillanceenvironments.” Surveillance & Society, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 331–355, 2003.

[12] M. G. Gordon Fletcher and M. Kutar, “A day in thedigital life: a preliminary sousveillance study,” SSRN,http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract id=1923629,September 7, 2011.

[13] R. Janzen and S. Mann, “Vixels, veillons, veillance flux: An extramissiveinformation-bearing formulation of sensing, to measure surveillance andsousveillance,” IEEE CCECE, pp. 1–10, 2014.

[14] K. Michael and M. Michael, “Sousveillance and point of view technolo-gies in law enforcement: An overview,” 2012.

[15] V. Bakir, Sousveillance, media and strategic political comm... Contin-uum, 2010.

[16] E. Bradshaw, “Sousveillance, direct action ...” Critical Criminology,vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 447–461, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10612-013-9205-4

[17] D. Freshwater, P. Fisher, and E. Walsh, “Revisiting the panopticon:professional regulation, surveillance and sousveillance,” NursingInquiry, May 2013, pMID: 23718546. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nin.12038

[18] S. Mann, Intelligent Image Processing. John Wiley and Sons, Nov. 22001.

[19] K. Kelly and G. Wolf, “What is the quantified self,” The Quantified Self,vol. 5, p. 2007, 2007.

[20] S. Mann, “Can humans being clerks make clerks be human? k onnenmenschen, die sich wie angestellte benehmen, angestellte zu men-schlichem verhalten bewegen?” Informationstechnik und TechnischeInformatik, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 97–106, 2001.

[21] S. Mann, C. Pierce, A. Bhargava, C. Tong, K. Desai, andK. O’Shaughnessy, “Sensing of the self, society, and the environment,”in 2020 IEEE Sensors. IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–4.

[22] S. Mann, “fl huge uid streams: fountains that are keyboards with nozzlespray as keys that give rich tactile feedback and are more expressive andmore fun than plastic keys,” in Proceedings of the 13th annual ACMinternational conference on Multimedia. ACM, 2005, pp. 181–190.

[23] C. Zeagler, “Where to wear it: functional, technical, and social consid-erations in on-body location for wearable technology 20 years of de-signing for wearability,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM InternationalSymposium on Wearable Computers, 2017, pp. 150–157.

[24] G. Harold, “Plan position indicator system,” Mar. 5 1946, uS Patent2,395,966.

[25] S. Mann and J. Fung, “EyeTap devices for augmented, deliberatelydiminished, or otherwise altered visual perception of rigid planar patchesof real-world scenes,” Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments,vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 158–175, 2002.

[26] M. Sandler, A. G. Howard, M. Zhu, A. Zhmoginov, and L. Chen,“Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks: Mobile networks forclassification, detection and segmentation,” CoRR, vol. abs/1801.04381,2018. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.04381

[27] N. R. F. Collaboration et al., “A century of trends in adult human height,”Elife, vol. 5, p. e13410, 2016.